A Study Of United States’ Policy Of Conflict Management Between Japan And South Korea

The management of intra-alliance conflict has an important influence on the development of the alliance.As an important internal conflict in the U.S.East Asia alliance system,the japanSouth Korea conflict has always been an important factor affecting the regional harmony in Northeast Asia and the stability of the U.S.East Asia Alliance.As an ally of Japan and South Korea,the United States plays a vital role in resolving conflicts between the two countries.After World War Ⅱ,as an ally of Japan and South Korea,the United States became an important factor that could not be ignored in the bilateral relations between Japan and South Korea.In particular,in the reconciliation process between Japan and South Korea,the U.S.acted as a mediator and successfully promoted the normalization of diplomatic relations between the two sides.It took the United States 14 years and four presidents,Truman,Eisenhower,Kennedy,and Johnson,to achieve the goal.Through the declassified documents,it can be seen that the mediation methods of each government were not the same,which was determined by the different framing results of each government to mediate the conflict between Japan and South Korea and also by the United States’ ability to mediate the conflict between Japan and South Korea.America’s perception of the Japan-South Korea conflict was not the same as its framing of whether to mediate it.A rapprochement between Japan and South Korea was harmless in the national interest of the United States,but the U.S.government had different views on intervention in the conflict.The United States’ mediation policy to the Japan-South Korea conflict depends on matching its different framing results of the interference in the Japan-South Korea conflict and its different conflict management capabilities.The United States’ framing result on whether to intervene in the Japan-South Korea conflict was subject to its national interests and strategies,while its conflict management ability depended on the effectiveness of its mediation leverages.When the United States defined intervention as a loss,the United States will adopt the didactic management policy with minimum participation;When the United States regards intervention management as benefit,if the United States has strong conflict management ability,it will adopt a coercive management policy.If the conflict management ability is weak,the United States will adopt seductive management policy.The behavior logic behind the different policy choices of the United States in the mediation of the Japan-Korea conflict can be verified through three typical events of the preparatory meeting of the rapprochement negotiation between Japan and South Korea promoted by the Truman administration,the breakdown after the mediation of "Kubota’s Remark," and the signing of the final reconciliation agreement between Japan and South Korea in 1964-1965.The Truman administration framed managing the conflict as a loss,resulting in its didactic policy.The Eisenhower administration framed the management as a profit but conducted seductive policy because of its weak capability.The Johnson administration also framed the management as profit and conducted its coercive policy with a strong capability.Since the beginning of the peace talks on establishing diplomatic ties between Japan and South Korea,the United States has played the role of "ballast stone" in bilateral relations.However,such a management mode has led to the "talk without harmony" between Japan and South Korea and the "mediation without stop" of the United States,which has become a significant dilemma in the alliance between the three countries.The study of U.S.mediation strategies and attitudes toward Japan and South Korea will help us deepen our understanding of Japan-South Korea relations and the U.S.alliance strategy and lay a foundation for the follow-up study of the reconciliation between East Asian countries.